Fetzer & Rev. Sun Myung Moon
dxm...@aol.com
Subj: Fetzer & the Rev. Sun Myung Moon
The newsgroups have recently been the scene of some heated
debates on the merits of the recently released book titled
Assassination Science. The Author, James Fetzer, had some
intense confrontations with Martin Shakelford and Howard
Platzman. Fetzer has implied that Martin is some kind of
disinformation agent. The readers might want to learn about
an association of Jim Fetzer's with a book publisher that is
owned by a man who is no stranger to "disinformation."
The "Moonies" are a religious cult headed by the Rev. Sun
Myung Moon. Moon founded the Unification Church. A book company
by the name of Paragon House has published several books that
Jim Fetzer has authored or edited. Paragon House (and the
Washington Times) are both owned by Sun Myung Moon. Here is
information about Paragon House and about the books they
have published by James Fetzer. I draw no conclusions about the
motivation of Jim Fetzer to be involved with Paragon House. We'll
leave it up to the reader to make their own interpretation.
This first section of information was found at...
http://www.ex-cult.org/Groups/Unification-Church/moonlist.txt
MOON MEDIA FRONTS:
Paragon House Publishers * 866 2nd Ave., NYC; 212-223-6433 (owned
by Paragon Book Reprint Co., which is owned by International
Cultural Foundation; also at 481 8th Ave., 212-239-7422
International Cultural Foundation * (I.C.F.) 1667 K St., NW,
Washington, DC 20006; 202-293-9393; also 4 W. 43rd St., NYC
10036; 212-947-1756 (funds many church projects, especially
Int'l Conf. on Unity of Sciences; sole shareholder of
Paragon House Publishers) Neil Albert Salonen, President
(former Pres. of Unif. Church of America, 1971-80)
International Conference for the Unity of the Sciences * (ICUS)
481 8th Ave., Rm 747, NYC 10001; 212-947-1756 (funded by
Int'l Cultural Foundation)
The following information is from Paragon House's Web site.
http://www.paragonhouse.com/Paragon/information.html
Paragon House is a member of the Continuum Publishing Group, New York.
In 1981, the International Cultural Foundation purchased Paragon Book
and Reprint Corporation in New York, a company specializing in Asian
books and Asian philosophy, and expanded it to a mid-size publishing
house to support religious scholars, philosophers, social theorists,
and scientists writing on issues affecting contemporary life. In 1996,
the main office moved to St. Paul, Minnesota.
2700 University Avenue West, Suite 47, St. Paul, Minnesota 55114 USA
Phone: (612)644-3087 -- Fax: (800) 494-0997
Here are the first three books listed in Paragon House's Web
site under category of philosophy:
PHILOSOPHY AND COGNITIVE SCIENCE
Second Edition: Revised and Expanded
James H. Fetzer
This volume provides an introduction to cognitive science, the
most exciting and fastest growing area of intellectual inquiry in the
world today. It examines the principal problems that cognitive
science addresses, the solutions it considers, and the intellectual
landscape against which its importance may be measured.
ISBN 1-55778-739-5 Paper $16.95, References, Indexes, pp. 208
CONTENTS
Chapter 1 A Science of Cognition
Chapter 2 Are we Brains in Vats?
Chapter 3 Minds and Machines
Chapter 4 The Nature of Language
Chapter 5 What is Mentality?
Chapter 6 Connectionism and Cognition
Chapter 7 Mental Development
Chapter 8 Are Humans Rational?
Chapter 9 Mentality, Causality, Morality
"Jim Fetzer's abilities as a stimulating teacher and as an insightful
scholar are wonderfully woven together in Philosophy and Cognitive
Science. He introduces a broad range of perspectives and insights
on the interaction of philosophy and the rapidly developing
disciplines of cognitive science.Reading [it] is a richly
rewarding experience."
--William Bechtel, Washington University, and current Editor of
Philosophical Psychology
"This is a good book. Innovative in its integration of computational
and connectionist approaches with more traditional views of thought
and representation, the book ably introduces a host of issues at the
interface of philosophy of mind and cognitive science. It will be
valuable to anyone with a general interest in cognitive science
and should also be popular as a text."
--George Graham, University of Alabama, Birmingham, and former Editor
of Behavior and Philosophy
JAMES H. FETZER is McKnight University Professor at the University of
Minnesota, Duluth. Heis author of Philosophy of Science and Foundations
of Philosophy of Science: Recent Developments and co-author of Glossary
of Epistemology/Philosophy of Science and Glossaryof Cognitive Science.
He is Editor of Minds and Machines and Series Editor of Studies in
Cognitive Systems.
FOUNDATIONS OF PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE
Recent Developments
Edited by JAMES H. FETZER
University of Minnesota, Duluth
ISBN 1-55778-480-9, 512 pp., index, paper $28.95
Twenty-five classic and contemporary articles by Rudolf Carnap, Karl
Popper, Carl Hempel, Wesley Salmon and many others provide accessible
and stimulating reading in this growing field. Organized to correspond
to the companion volume, Philosophy of Science, these papers investigate
the methods and goals of empirical science and explore connections
between the history and philosophy of science. Review questions and
an extensive bibliography make Foundations of Philosophy of Science
useful as both a supplemental and independent text for courses in
philosophy and the social sciences.
PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE
JAMES H. FETZER
University of Minnesota, Duluth
ISBN 1-55778-481-7, 195 pp., index, paper $16.95
The development of science has been a distinctive feature of human
history in recent times, especially in the seventeenth and eighteenth
centuries. In light of the problems that define the philosophy of
science today, James Fetzer provides a foundation for inquiry into
the nature of science, the history of science, and the relationship
between the two.
By emphasizing the importance of methodological commitments to the
study of science and the significance of interpretations of
probability to understanding laws of nature and scientific
explanations, this book offers a welcome framework for investigating
the most recent work and the most promising solutions to the central
problems that arise within this discipline. The result is a timely
introduction to an increasingly important field.
SPECIAL FEATURES:
Clear, accessible, and comprehensive
Written by a major contributor to the field
Broad scope of coverage with concise discussion
Historical examples skillfully woven into the text
Companion anthology organized to correspond to the text
JAMES H. FETZER is professor of philosophy at the University of
Minnesota, Duluth. In addition to publishing more than seventy
articles and reviews, he is the author of Philosophy and Cognitive
Science (1991), the editor of Foundations of Philosophy of Science:
Recent Developments (1993), and coauthor of The Paragon Glossary
of Cognitive Science (with Charles Dunlop, forthcoming), and The
Paragon Glossary in Epistemology/Philosophy of Science (with Robert
Almeder).
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Greg Jaynes
Fetzer puts it out there and debates it with anyone
who is serious enough to take him on.
His resume and credentials are impressive and he
is a very intelligent guy. His opinions about the Z-film
are bogus but that is his right. Thats why we call them
buffs.
I don't respect this guilt by association expose.
This is straight out of Lisa Pease's hand book on
defaming someone. Can't you just debate the man's
opinions and skip the innuendo? Martin and Howard
are big boys and hold their own very well against him.
Greg Jaynes
Joe Riley
The last thing that this newsgroup needs is more "guilt by association"
attacks.
The truth is out there and should be sought with evidence, reason, and
objectivity.
No good comes from this sort of smear.
dxm...@aol.com wrote in message <887144918....@dejanews.com>...
J. Stevens
This muckraking guilt by assassociation means nothing.
JFK assassination authors are lucky to be published by ANYONE these
days,
gievn the current climate. The cultist Rev.Moon has investments in many
and various businesses. Besides, Anthony Summers' book "CONSPIRACY"
was also reissued by Paragon House in 1993. So what?
Jan
Jerry Organ
J. Stevens wrote:
> This muckraking guilt by assassociation means nothing.
Only the basis of many a conspiracy theory (LBJ-Hoover-Dulles-Ford-Bush). If you stick to the
facts alone, Oswald did the deed all by his lonesome.
> JFK assassination authors are lucky to be published by ANYONE these
> days, given the current climate.
Seems like there's lots of mass-published conspiracy books, videos and a certain
multi-million-dollar Hollywood movie on the market these days.
But try publishing a book that presents compelling evidence for the lone-assassin and
examines the photographic issues. Chances are you'll have to self-publish, only to be
attacked for "smearing" critics and the book's cost-per-page.
But I can sleep at night, knowing I didn't have to build a case on "guilt-by-association."
Jerry Organ
Fred Glazier
Jerry,
I must disagree with you. Posner seemed to get plenty of attention to
me. Are you stating that you are having a hard time getting your book
published?
Funny when I follow all the facts I am left with the inescapable
conclusion that something is being covered up.
Frederick
jack white
Jim Fetzer makes the following additions to the posting of dxmivi:
Subject:
Re: Professor Fetzer & Paragon House (fwd)
Date:
Wed, 11 Feb 1998 17:09:41 -0600 (CST)
From:
james fetzer <jfe...@d.umn.edu>
To:
jw...@flash.net
CC:
james fetzer <jfe...@d.umn.edu>
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 17:02:17 -0600 (CST)
From: james fetzer <jfe...@d.umn.edu>
To: dxm...@aol.com
Cc: james fetzer <jfe...@d.umn.edu>
Subject: Re: Professor Fetzer & Paragon House
Your interesting post has reached me, but it appears to be incomplete. I
would appreciate it if you would post the following reply for me. Thanks.
Jim
_________________________________________________________________________
The list of my publications with Paragon House left out two other books,
as well as ten books I have published with Kluwer Academic Publishers of
Dordrecht, Holland (an eleventh is forthcoming), another I published with
Rowman & Allanheld, two forthcoming with Oxford University Press, and of
course ASSASSINATION SCIENCE, which has just been published by Open Court.
In addition I co-edit the journal SYNTHESE, edit the journal MINDS AND MA-
CHINES, and edit two book series, one for professionals, STUDIES IN COG-
NITIVE SYSTEMS, another for undergraduates, EXPLORATIONS IN PHILOSOPHY.
Additional information concerning each of these is being provided below.
With respect to Paragon House, I was initially contacted by two respected
philosophers, John Roth of Claremont Graduate School and Frederick Sontag
of Pomona College, who were editing a series of textbooks for undergradu-
ates, asking if I might be interested in authoring an introduction to the
field of cognitive science. I liked the idea and soon found myself work-
ing with an excellent in-house editor, Peter Coveney, now the Executive
Editor of M.E. Sharpe, Inc., of Armonk, New York. When I discovered the
house was owned by the Moonies, I had a lengthy talk with Peter, who as-
sured me that the publishing house was independent of any editorial con-
trol from the Moonies. Many publishers and other media outlets are own-
ed by corporations with quite diverse interests, of course, and everyone
in a situation like this must decide what to do for themselves. I stay-
ed with Paragon and have now published five Paragon books. Publishing is
a mixed bag for the Moonies, as I understand it, however, since Paragon
appears to lose money. Our relations have been completely professional.
For those interested, here is more concerning my publishing activities.
There are two other books that ought to be listed on Paragon's web site:
GLOSSARY OF EPISTEMOLOGY/PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE
James H. Fetzer and Robert F. Almeder
EPISTEMOLOGY and PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE are two related foundational
areas of philosophy. Drawing upon an overlapping and very technical
vocabulary, the literature and texts of the field are often inacces-
sible to students and other readers. Here is a handy, compact re-
source that accurately and simply defines key terms and concepts,
explains fine distinctions, and aids understanding of current debates.
JAMES H. FETZER is professor of philosophy at the University of Minne-
sota, Duluth. His publications include PHILOSOPHY AND COGNITIVE SCI-
ENCE (Paragon House, 1991) and PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE (Paragon House,
1992). He is editor of the journal MINDS AND MACHINES.
ROBERT F. ALMEDER is professor of philosophy at Georgia State Univer-
sity. His publications include BLIND REALISM: AN ESSAY ON HUMAN
KNOWLEDGE AND NATURAL SCIENCE (1991) and THE PHILOSOPHY OF CHARLES
S. PEIRCE: A CRITICAL INTRODUCTION (1980).
ISBN 1-55778-558-9, 149 + ix pp., Hardback $13.95 ISBN 1-55778-559-7
Paperback $ 8.95
GLOSSARY OF COGNITIVE SCIENCE
Charles E.M. Dunlop and James H. Fetzer
Readers and students approaching Cognitive Science often find them-
selves adrift in a sea of unfamiliar terminology. Here are the terms,
concepts, and thinkers from the contributing disciplines of philosophy,
psychology, artificial intelligence, and linguistics defined briefly
and clearly, with abundant examples. This glossary is a compact re-
source for understanding a sophisticated and fascinating field.
CHARLES E.M. DUNLOP is professor of philosophy at the University of
Michigan, Flint. He is the editor of COMPUTERIZATION AND CONTROVERSY:
VALUE CONFLICTS AND SOCIAL CHOICES (1991) and PHILOSOPHICAL ESSAYS ON
DREAMING (1977).
JAMES H. FETZER is professor of philosophy at the University of Minne-
sota, Duluth. His publications include PHILOSOPHY AND COGNITIVE SCI-
ENCE (Paragon House, 1991) and PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE (Paragon House,
1992). He is editor of the journal MINDS AND MACHINES.
ISBN 1-55778-566-X, 146 + xii pp., Hardback $13.95 ISBN 1-55778-567-8
Paperback $8.95
Most of my other books are listed on amazon.com, but here is further
information about journals and book series of which I am the editor:
SYNTHESE: An International Journal for Epistemology, Methodology
and Philosophy of Science
Editor-in-Chief: Jaakko Hintikka, Boston University
Editors: James H. Fetzer, University of Minnesota, Duluth; Risto
Hilpinen, University of Miami; and Barry Richards, Imperial
College of Science, Technology and Medicine
Editor and Book Review Editor: Paul Humphreys, University of Virginia
SYNTHESE publishes articles in all the fields covered by the subtitle.
These include: the theory of knowledge; the general methodological
problems of science, such as the problems of scientific discovery and
scientific inference, of induction and probability, of causation and
the role of mathematics, statistics and logic in science; the method-
ological and foundational problems of the different departmental sci-
ences, insofar as they have philosophical interest; those aspects of
symbolic logic and of the foundations of mathematics which are rele-
vant to the philosophy and methodology of science; and those facets
of the history and sociology of science which are important for con-
temporary topical pursuits. Special attention is paid to the role of
mathematical, logical and linguistic methods in the general methodol-
ogy of science and the foundations of the different sciences, be they
physical, biological, behavioral, or social. Papers are invited in
all these fields.
ISSN 0039-7857 SYNTHESE is published monthly by Kluwer Academic
Publishers. Volumes 114-117 will appear in 1998.
MINDS AND MACHINES: Journal for Artificial Intelligence, Philosophy,
and Cognitive Science
Editor: James H. Fetzer, University of Minnesota, Duluth
Review Editor: William J. Rapaport, SUNY Buffalo
MINDS AND MACHINES affords an international forum for discussion and
debate of important and controversial issues concerning significant
developments within its areas of editorial focus. Well-reasoned con-
tributions from diverse theoretical perspectives are welcome and every
effort will be made to insure their prompt publication. Among the fea-
tures that are intended to make this journal distinctive within the
field are these:
--Strong stands on controversial issues are especially encouraged;
--Important articles exceeding normal journal length may appear;
--Special issues devoted to specific topics will be a regular feature;
--Review essays discussing current problem situations will appear;
--Critical responses to previously published pieces are also invited.
This journal is intended to foster a tradition of criticism within
the AI and philosophical communities on problems and issues of common
concern. Its scope explicitly encompasses philosophical aspects of
computer science.
EDITORIAL FOCUS: Machines and Mentality, Knowledge and Its Represen-
tation, Epistemic Aspects of Computer Programming, Connectionist Con-
ceptions, Artificial Intelligence and Epistemology, Computer Method-
ology, Computational Approaches to Philosophical Issues, Philosophy
of Computer Science, Simulating and Modeling, and Ethical Aspects of
Artificial Intelligence.
ISSN 0924-6495 MINDS AND MACHINES is published quarterly by Kluwer
Academic Publishers. Volume 8 appears during 1998.
STUDIES IN COGNITIVE SYSTEMS
Editor: James H. Fetzer, University of Minnesota, Duluth
This series will include monographs and collections of studies de-
voted to the investigation and exploration of knowledge, information,
and data-processing systems of all kinds, no matter whether human,
(other) animal, or machine. Its scope is intended to span the full
range of interests from classical problems in the philosophy of mind
and philosophical psychology through issues in cognitive psychology
and sociobiology (regarding the mental abilities of other species)
to ideas related to artificial intelligence and computer science.
While primary emphasis will be placed upon theoretical, conceptual
and epistemological aspects of these problems and domains, empirical,
experimental, and methodological studies will also appear from time
to time.
STUDIES IN COGNITIVE SYSTEMS is published by Kluwer Academic Publish-
ers. During 1998, the twentieth volume in the series will appear.
EXPLORATIONS IN PHILOSOPHY
James H. Fetzer, Series Editor
The series, EXPLORATIONS IN PHILOSOPHY, is intended to provide under-
graduates and other readers with quality introductions not only to the
principal areas of philosophy, including traditional topics of inves-
tigation--epistemology, ethics, and social and political philosophy--
but also to contemporary subjects of importance such as critical the-
ory, feminist studies, and the ethics of reproduction. In each case,
the editors have chosen authors who could not only explain the central
problems encountered within their respective domains, but who could
also propose promising solutions to those problems, including novel
approaches and original analyses.
EXPLORATIONS IN PHILOSOPHY is published by M.E. Sharpe, Inc. During
1998, the first volume in the series will appear.
JAMES H. FETZER is the founding editor of MINDS AND MACHINES, STUDIES
IN COGNITIVE SYSTEMS, and EXPLORATIONS IN PHILOSOPHY. He is also the
founder of The Society for Machines and Mentality, and has published
more than 100 articles and reviews in professional books and journals.
Jerry Organ
Fred Glazier wrote:
> I must disagree with you. Posner seemed to get plenty of attention to
> me. Are you stating that you are having a hard time getting your book
> published?
I saying that Posner's best-seller was the notable exception for lone-assassin writers. Savage,
Trask and myself have had to self-publish while even the most dubious of conspiracy authors
are welcomed by mass-publishers with open arms, who know "conspiracy" sells to a gullible
public fascinated by it.
I have to wonder why an intelligent person like Jan Stevens would proclaim: "JFK
assassination authors are lucky to be published by ANYONE these days, given the current
climate."
Jerry Organ
J. Stevens
Jerry Organ wrote:
> I have to wonder why an intelligent person like Jan Stevens would proclaim: "JFK
> assassination authors are lucky to be published by ANYONE these days, given the current
> climate."
>
> Jerry Organ
>
> http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/jojoan/grains.html
Jerry,
You are totally and provably incorrect of the state of affairs in
publishing, at least regarding the JFK assassination.
There are a number of "conspiracy authors" with manuscripts done or
nearly done that can't get a publisher. Fora number of reasons that can
probably best be explained sociologically, the public at large is no
longer all that interested in conspiracy, as it was in the rich
post-Oliver Stone period of 1992-93. Thewriters that have been
published of late have either had their manuscripts put out by
assassination-oriented organizations like Lancer (Vince Palamara's book)
or CTKA (Bill Davy's manuscript on Clay Shaw) -- or by VERY SMALL houses
that have mostly lost money on these endeavors. Robert Groden for one
can't get his work published, others who shall remain nameless are
having problems too. Even the mighty MPI Video has spent considerable
time and money filming a brandnew JFK assassination video that is
finished but that cannot find a buyer. I have spoken with authors who
have said, in effect, that they were told by major publishers that
Posner's book was the "last word". It went a long way in killing the
conspiracy book market and fooling the media. Carrol and Graf -- who put
out a number of assassination books by Jim Marrs, Walt Brown, John
Newman, Harrison Livingstone, Jim Marrs, et al have said definitively
that they would never publish a JFK assassination book again. You also
wrote:
> Savage, Trask and myself have had to self-publish while even the most
dubious of
>conspiracy authors are welcomed by mass-publishers with open arms, who
know
>"conspiracy" sells to a gullible public fascinated by it.
I suggest you actually TALK to some of the writers and find this out for
yourself. If you think conspiracy authors are raking it in, you are
either grossly misinformed or under a serious delusion.
Jan Stevens
Jerry Organ
J. Stevens wrote:
> You are totally and provably incorrect of the state of affairs in
> publishing, at least regarding the JFK assassination.
> There are a number of "conspiracy authors" with manuscripts done or
> nearly done that can't get a publisher. For a number of reasons that can
> probably best be explained sociologically, the public at large is no
> longer all that interested in conspiracy, as it was in the rich
> post-Oliver Stone period of 1992-93.
Well put, Jan. But it's my experience that even the small number of people still interested in
the case are more likely to buy a pro-conspiracy book than a lone-assassin book.
> Thewriters that have been published of late have either had their manuscripts
> put out by assassination-oriented organizations like Lancer (Vince Palamara's
> book) or CTKA (Bill Davy's manuscript on Clay Shaw) -- or by VERY SMALL
> houses that have mostly lost money on these endeavors.
Even that's more support than people like Trask, Savage and myself have.
> Robert Groden for one can't get his work published,
I thought Groden had published all in his two "comprehensive" coffee-table books from
Viking-Penguin, and videos. You mean he's got more stuff to profiteer from? Geez.
> others who shall remain nameless are having problems too.
Try getting out a book that discredits the conspiracy racket.
> Even the mighty MPI Video has spent considerable time and money
>filming a brandnew JFK assassination video that is finished but that
> cannot find a buyer.
How can it be finished? They haven't given me 20-minutes to rebut.
> I have spoken with authors who have said, in effect, that they were told
> by major publishers that Posner's book was the "last word". It went a
> long way in killing the conspiracy book market and fooling the media.
I don't agree with a lot that's in the Posner book, so I wrote my own. It's even harder for writers
who support the lone-assassin model to get sales started -- and yet I am continually attacked
here for "profiteering."
> Carrol and Graf -- who put out a number of assassination books by
> Jim Marrs, Walt Brown, John Newman, Harrison Livingstone, Jim Marrs,
> et al have said definitively that they would never publish a JFK
> assassination book again.
We'll see. Perhaps they should "balance" their vast inventory of conspiracy-only books by
putting out a lone-assassin book. Mine, for instance.
>> Savage, Trask and myself have had to self-publish while even the most
>> dubious of conspiracy authors are welcomed by mass-publishers with
>> open arms, who know "conspiracy" sells to a gullible public fascinated by it.
> I suggest you actually TALK to some of the writers and find this out
> for yourself. If you think conspiracy authors are raking it in, you are
> either grossly misinformed or under a serious delusion.
That's fine -- and let's disillusion those who acuse me of "profiteering." I'll have to sell many
more copies just to break even on the material and production costs, let alone be paid for the
months and months of preparation and research time than went into the project. With backing
from a mass-publisher like Carroll & Graf, I could have easily written 500-pages.
Jerry Organ
Barb Junkkarinen
In <34E29A...@ns.sympatico.ca> Jerry Organ <joj...@ns.sympatico.ca>
writes:
[....]
>I don't agree with a lot that's in the Posner book, so I wrote my own.
It's even harder for writers
>who support the lone-assassin model to get sales started -- and yet I
am continually attacked
>here for "profiteering."
Hi Jerry,
I'd be interested in your main objections to Posner's book.
Methodology...conclusions...accuracy???
[....]
Barb :-)
Jerry Organ
Barb Junkkarinen wrote:
> I'd be interested in your main objections to Posner's book.
> Methodology...conclusions...accuracy???
Here's two for starters:
1) The FMJ separating from its jacket upon hitting a branch.
2) Posner's shaddy treatment of Arnold Rowland.
More in my book "Groden's Grains." Preview at:
http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/jojoan/grains.html
Jerry Organ
Barb Junkkarinen
In <34E2E3...@ns.sympatico.ca> Jerry Organ <joj...@ns.sympatico.ca>
writes:
Good, Jerry...thanks. And thanks for the URL, I'll check it out.
How about Posner's error-ridden use of Marina's testimony, Frazier's
testimony and Randle's testimony??
Barb :-)
Jerry Organ
Barb Junkkarinen wrote:
>> Here's two for starters:
>> 1) The FMJ separating from its jacket upon hitting a branch.
>> 2) Posner's shaddy treatment of Arnold Rowland.
>> More in my book "Groden's Grains." Preview at:
>> http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/jojoan/grains.html
>> Jerry Organ
> Good, Jerry...thanks. And thanks for the URL, I'll check it out.
> How about Posner's error-ridden use of Marina's testimony, Frazier's
> testimony and Randle's testimony??
You're welcome, Barb. The website should be enough to keep you busy for now. Hope you
enjoy.
Jerry
J. Stevens
Jerry Organ wrote:
>
> J. Stevens wrote:
>
> > You are totally and provably incorrect of the state of affairs in
> > publishing, at least regarding the JFK assassination.
> > There are a number of "conspiracy authors" with manuscripts done or
> > nearly done that can't get a publisher. For a number of reasons that can
> > probably best be explained sociologically, the public at large is no
> > longer all that interested in conspiracy, as it was in the rich
> > post-Oliver Stone period of 1992-93.
>
> Well put, Jan. But it's my experience that even the small number of people still interested in
> the case are more likely to buy a pro-conspiracy book than a lone-assassin book.
====You're right Jerry and I agree. Probably because so many lone
nutter books are reghashed and not too creative. rehashed crap, leaving
out the witnesses that they don't like. (See my post "THE WITNESSES NOT
CALLED" a few eeks ago; written for McAdams. His response was barely 5
sentences. Was I surprised? NO Besides with lone nutter books, we
pretty much know "what the ending will be" as well. One can only "sell"
the fabricated and distorted evidence against Oswald so many times...
I read 'em all anyway, as do many other serious researchers.
> I thought Groden had published all in his two "comprehensive" coffee-table books from
> Viking-Penguin, and videos. You mean he's got more stuff to profiteer from? Geez.
Come on Jerry ; you trying to "profiteer" too. Your anti-Groden bias
aside, all who write such material have a right to be compensated for
their work if possible -- even you, but I think the issue with yours is
that its not directly about the research, its about a researcher and his
"take' on the research. That's another matter. Good think you did not
try that with Livingstone. You'd be in court NEXT WEEK.
> We'll see. Perhaps they should "balance" their vast inventory of conspiracy-only books by
> putting out a lone-assassin book. Mine, for instance.
======Its been done. Posner, Belin, Moore, Sparrow, Davidson etc.
None were all that well-written and offered nothing more than retreads
of the Commission, except Posner who had factually wrong material and
selectively
omitted stuff -- even lone nutters can see that. It's a dismal
publishing atmosphere at present -- no matter what side you're on.
Jan
Jerry Organ
Jan Stevens wrote:
>> Well put, Jan. But it's my experience that even the small
>> number of people still interested in the case are more likely
>> to buy a pro-conspiracy book than a lone-assassin book.
> You're right Jerry and I agree. Probably because so many lone
> nutter books are rehashed and not too creative.
Rehashed? Look at the drivel and padding in Livingstone's three books and Groden's two
since "High Treason." Hell: just look at "High Treason" itself.
> I read 'em all anyway, as do many other serious researchers.
You haven't read mine, nor intend to.
>> I thought Groden had published all in his two "comprehensive"
>> coffee-table books from Viking-Penguin, and videos. You mean
>> he's got more stuff to profiteer from? Geez.
> Come on Jerry ; you trying to "profiteer" too.
There's a difference in how Groden operates, which even Lifton can attest to. Only Groden
would sell the President's death pictures to a supermarket tabloid for $50,000 and then spice
it up by accusing Mrs. Kennedy of suppressing the same autopsy photos he denied to the
research community for a decade. Then he goes back to the cash-cow not once, but twice with
loads of crap, faulty analysis and wild speculation.
His former partner Livingstone now laments that it's a disgrace that Groden's dubious analysis
appears in a mass-published, richly-produced package, while genuine analysis from Richard
Trask has to be self-published, with no color between its covers. Amen.
> Your anti-Groden bias aside, all who write such material have a
> right to be compensated for their work if possible -- even you,
> but I think the issue with yours is that its not directly about the
> research, its about a researcher and his "take" on the research.
And your "take" on "Groden's Grains" is simply meant to put people off purchasing it. Your
method is a bit like condemning a book on what's in its promotional blurb. If you tried reading
the book, you would find it focuses on the photographic issues alone.
> That's another matter. Good think you did not try that with
> Livingstone. You'd be in court NEXT WEEK.
I did: Remember "Insights on the X-rays" in 1993? I wasn't sued because I focused on the
issues. Actually I can tolerate Livingstone more than characters like Groden and Lifton -- Harry
isn't afraid to tell off any critic who's sprouting garbage. He's not beholding to the "party line"
like most critic-authors.
It seems Groden is more apt to sue than Livingstone: Again no suit, because there's no libel
case. Period. You're letting your paranoia get to you, Jan. It's still a free press -- I don't require
character assassination and innuendo to fill a book.
>> We'll see. Perhaps they should "balance" their vast inventory
>> of conspiracy-only books by putting out a lone-assassin book.
>> Mine, for instance.
> Its been done. Posner, Belin, Moore, Sparrow, Davidson etc.
Not by Carroll & Graf. The only one on your list published by a mass-publisher since the "JFK"
movie was Posner. Now stack that one "lone-assassin" exception up against the dozens and
dozens of mass-published works by conspiracy-authors since 1992, a significant number by
Carroll & Graf.
> None were all that well-written and offered nothing more
> than retreads of the Commission, except Posner who had
> factually wrong material and selectively omitted stuff --
> even lone nutters can see that.
My book has lots of good research, including commentary on advances the Commission didn't
have the benefit of:
- lapel-flip and computer trajectory analysis
- autopsy photos and X-rays
- Oswald's prints on the trigger-housing
Research in the book includes:
- a critique of Groden's photographic analysis
- a concise history of the autopsy photos
- Groden's method for "finding" crop lines
- Groden's revival of "The Man in the Doorway"
- why Oswald didn't shoot at the car on Houston
- whom did Arnold Rowland see on the 6th floor
- an expose of issues like Z413, Black Dog Man
- was the "puff of smoke" a bottle-breaking
- the Thompson/Holland relationship
- analysis of Groden's "six-shot" model
- the Single-Bullet Theory explored
- the clothing bunch proven
- a new model for the head-snap
- the "missing" frontal bone explained
- Oswald's motivation.
If you want to dismiss the book without reading it, that's fine. I've never condemn any work
without at least reading it first. That wouldn't be fair to the author -- or my conscience.
> It's a dismal publishing atmosphere at present -- no matter
> what side you're on.
That's because the conspiracy-authors have failed to make their case in any meaningful way.
Sure, they've managed to convinced the under-educated and those too disinterested to
further research. After all, the "JFK" was dedicated to the young; a segment vunerable
because they are naive and idealistic.
Isn't it time you grew up -- and faced the facts in this case?
--------------
Jerry Organ
[Groden's Grains] [Smoking Gun] [Kennedy's Lincoln]
http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/jojoan/grains.html
John McAdams
On Wed, 11 Feb 1998 00:45:08 +0000, "J. Stevens" <jrs...@idt.net>
wrote:
>dxm...@aol.com wrote:
>>
>> Subj: Fetzer & the Rev. Sun Myung Moon
>
>This muckraking guilt by assassociation means nothing.
Jan, I agree with you entirely on this. But don't you think
conspiracy folks ought to take this principle to heart when the issue
is the Kennedy assassination?
You will remember posting a long list of "witnesses" the WC "should
have called," and the only thing sinister about most of the people on
the list was some "association" they had. They were anti-communist,
for example, or Cuban.
"Guilt by association" sure looks different when it is directed
*toward* conspiracy folks, doesn't it?
.John
Lisa Pease
dxm...@aol.com wrote:
: Subj: Fetzer & the Rev. Sun Myung Moon
: The newsgroups have recently been the scene of some heated
: debates on the merits of the recently released book titled
: Assassination Science. The Author, James Fetzer, had some
: intense confrontations with Martin Shakelford and Howard
: Platzman. Fetzer has implied that Martin is some kind of
: disinformation agent. The readers might want to learn about
: an association of Jim Fetzer's with a book publisher that is
: owned by a man who is no stranger to "disinformation."
: The "Moonies" are a religious cult headed by the Rev. Sun
: Myung Moon. Moon founded the Unification Church. A book company
: by the name of Paragon House has published several books that
: Jim Fetzer has authored or edited. Paragon House (and the
: Washington Times) are both owned by Sun Myung Moon. Here is
: information about Paragon House and about the books they
: have published by James Fetzer. I draw no conclusions about the
: motivation of Jim Fetzer to be involved with Paragon House. We'll
: leave it up to the reader to make their own interpretation.
Yes you do, or you wouldn't have posted this here as relevant.
Phil Melanson used a publisher with known CIA ties to publish SPY SAGA
(Praeger). Yet it is the single book up until OSWALD AND THE CIA to give
clear focus to Oswald's real role.
If you have a problem with Fetzer's book, deal with the evidence with
which you have a problem. If you can show that there is some favoritism
to moonies in his book (which is of course preposterous) than your point
would have validity.
But your post here setting up a straw man begs the question not of his
own motives, but rather, of yours.
--
Lisa Pease
"It is as if the final price for winning the Cold War is our confinement
to a permanent childhood where reassuring fantasies and endless
diversions protect us from the hard truth of our own recent history."
--Robert Parry, THE CONSORTIUM, 2/17/97
Check out my Real History Archives @ http://www.webcom.com/lpease
Visit the site of Probe Magazine at http://www.webcom.com/ctka
Lisa Pease
Greg Jaynes (jay...@flash.net) wrote:
: Fetzer puts it out there and debates it with anyone
: who is serious enough to take him on.
: His resume and credentials are impressive and he
: is a very intelligent guy. His opinions about the Z-film
: are bogus but that is his right. Thats why we call them
: buffs.
Does this mean you are now fully out of the closet as a lone nutter? :)
J. Stevens
Jerry Organ wrote:
> Isn't it time you grew up -- and faced the facts in this case?
>
> --------------
> Jerry Organ
Don't tell me about "the facts in this case", Jerry; I've been at this
case
since 1965. In fact, I was about to respond to several decent points
you made, but after reading your last-minute, asinine and unfounded
swipe, I realize you have no intentions for serious discussion.
Jan
Jerry Organ
J. Stevens wrote:
> Don't tell me about "the facts in this case", Jerry; I've been at this
> case since 1965. In fact, I was about to respond to several decent
> points you made, but after reading your last-minute, asinine and
> unfounded swipe, I realize you have no intentions for serious
> discussion.
Folks. This only confirms my observation:
"Isn't it time you grew up -- and faced the facts in this case?"
It's interesting how people like Stevens and Groden build their case on calling public officials
and serious researchers with a grasp on reality every name in the book, and label doctors and
review panels who confirm the lone-assassin evidence as "ignorant" or "liars" -- but when
subjected to a little of their own medicine, they stomp off clutching their teddy bears.
Is it true -- critics have the thinnest skins?
Greg Jaynes
Lisa Pease wrote:
>
> Greg Jaynes (jay...@flash.net) wrote:
>
> : Fetzer puts it out there and debates it with anyone
> : who is serious enough to take him on.
>
> : His resume and credentials are impressive and he
> : is a very intelligent guy. His opinions about the Z-film
> : are bogus but that is his right. Thats why we call them
> : buffs.
> Does this mean you are now fully out of the closet as a lone nutter? :)
>
> --
> Lisa Pease
Lisa,
I am not now nor have I ever been a lone nutter.
Yes I believe Oswald is guilty. Yes I believe the SBT.
Yes I believe Oswald fired the headshot from the 6th
floor window.
No, I am not convinced that Oswald acted alone.
No, I am not convinced a shot came from the grassy knoll.
No, I do not trust the CIA or the U.S. government to
tell us the truth.
Yes, I believe the U.S. government is corrupt and is
influenced by power that is not controlled by any
democratic process. But I blame this on a quarter
of a century of Democratic controll of congress and
it's big government policies which were born of
Franklin Roosevelts un constitutional "New Deal".
Greg Jaynes
Vern Pascal
You believe the SBT & the hail mary jet effect and your trying to
tell us your not a lone nutter? Well I do enjoy your website and by the
way you aren't visiting A.J. Weberman's opthamoligist are you?-Jeff
Bill Cleere
Greg Jaynes wrote:
> Yes, I believe the U.S. government is corrupt and is
> influenced by power that is not controlled by any
> democratic process. But I blame this on a quarter
> of a century of Democratic controll of congress and
> it's big government policies which were born of
> Franklin Roosevelts un constitutional "New Deal".
>
> Greg Jaynes
Guess it depends on your point of view. Here's how a
black man from Mississippi named Will Stark looked back
on the New Deal:
"I remember here in '31, the government sent a carload
of meat to give to the people that didn't have no work
to do and didn't have nothing to go on." Will spoke
with a sort of still horror in his voice. "They [the
local white authorities] kept the meat loaded up until
it spoiled and they had to burn it up, before they would
give it to them. ...And the government furnished flour and
things and they even written on the sack, NOT TO BE SOLD, TO
BE GIVEN OUT. But even after that, they wouldn't give it
out to the colored, they burnt it instead!"
(Alan Lomax, _The Land Where the Blues Began_, p. 194)
Somebody said that most folks' attitude toward the New
Deal was mainly determined by how hungry they were.
-- Bill Cleere
Greg Jaynes
Bill Cleere wrote in message <34E834...@pyramid.com>...
Well I'm not talking about welfare or how bad someone wants it.
I was referring to the Constitution of the United States that was
that was effectively ended when FDR assumed "BROAD
EXECUTIVE POWERS" as he called it in his first innaugural
address. But maybe you can tell me where I can find that part
in the constitution.
The suspension of rights under the Constitution actually
is authorized by the the document but only in times that
the public good requires it. Those rights have been
suspended since since March 1933. Has the public good
been served by the evolution of the national security state?
We have all lived most or all of our lives under a delcared
state of emergency.
You can argue that that was a good thing. Maybe you are right.
But as a result of the New Deal big government programs
which Democrats and nowadays Republicans seem to
love so much we can only try to steer the elephant. Forget
trying to make it spin around. This was my point.
Greg Jaynes
Greg Jaynes
Vern Pascal wrote in message
<6c8uj3$f1c$1...@newsd-163.iap.bryant.webtv.net>...
You believe the SBT & the hail mary jet effect and your trying to
tell us your not a lone nutter?
Don't you have to believe that Oswald acted ALONE
to qualify as a lone nutter? Since I am not convinced
either way you need a new category to label me by.
Unlike all the experts, I just don't know the answer.
Greg Jaynes
Fred Glazier
ROCK ON!!!
Frederick
I was always of the belief that it was the conservatives. Hey i like to
conserve trees and air and all that good stuff too but what about
provide for the common defense support the general welfare and secure
the blessings of liberty to us and our posterity. Kinda hard to enjoy
liberty when you are starving. Kinda hard when you don't have your
health too. Hey I got a splendid Idea how's bout we make sure everyone
has health coverage you know so they can enjoy their liberty.
Frederick
Fred Glazier
Greg,
I keep a copy of the U. S. Constitution on my desk. Would you care to
get into details regarding your beliefs of it's being bypassed by the
New Deal. I'm sorry If I have not phrased that correctly. Please feel
free to correct my understanding of your position.
I generally consider myself a liberal. I do however believe strongly in
the right to bear arms and the death penalty.
I really do want to hear what you think about this.
Frederick
Greg Jaynes wrote:
> Bill Cleere wrote in message <34E834...@pyramid.com>...
Ben Holmes
Jerry Organ (joj...@ns.sympatico.ca) wrote:
> J. Stevens wrote:
>
> > Don't tell me about "the facts in this case", Jerry; I've been at this
> > case since 1965. In fact, I was about to respond to several decent
> > points you made, but after reading your last-minute, asinine and
> > unfounded swipe, I realize you have no intentions for serious
> > discussion.
>
> Folks. This only confirms my observation:
>
> "Isn't it time you grew up -- and faced the facts in this case?"
>
> It's interesting how people like Stevens and Groden build their case on
> calling public officials and serious researchers with a grasp on
> reality every name in the book, and label doctors and review panels who
> confirm the lone-assassin evidence as "ignorant" or "liars" -- but when
> subjected to a little of their own medicine, they stomp off clutching
> their teddy bears.
>
> Is it true -- critics have the thinnest skins?
>
> --------------
> Jerry Organ
Can you name the 'doctors...who confirm the lone-assassin evidence'... I
have a sneaking suspicion that not one name will be from Bethesda or
Parkland....
Jerry Organ
Ben Holmes wrote:
> Can you name the 'doctors...who confirm the lone-assassin evidence'...
> I have a sneaking suspicion that not one name will be from Bethesda
> or Parkland....
Read what the majority have to say in "JAMA" and "Case Closed."
Vern Pascal
Jan, thanks for ths important info. Maybe you can expand on what's going
on in the next JFK/DPQ- keep up the good work -Jeff
Ben Holmes
Jerry Organ (joj...@ns.sympatico.ca) wrote:
> Ben Holmes wrote:
>
> > Can you name the 'doctors...who confirm the lone-assassin evidence'...
> > I have a sneaking suspicion that not one name will be from Bethesda
> > or Parkland....
>
> Read what the majority have to say in "JAMA" and "Case Closed."
Read the rebuttal to 'JAMA' in 'Assassination Science', and 'Case Closed'
is not reliable enough to be used....
Just admit that people who do not believe in a conspiracy, can also *NOT*
believe in the Warren Report (and it's testimony). While I disagree with
the 'conclusions' of the WC, I accept the vast majority of testimony and
evidence of the WC. (With the normal reservations on problem material, of
course... but the medical testimony I have no problems accepting.)
And your phrasing appears to be somewhat misleading... 'Read what the
*majority*...', majority of who? Certainly not a majority of the medical
witnesses, and I'm sure you're well aware of that...
Barb Junkkarinen
In <34E36B...@ns.sympatico.ca> Jerry Organ <joj...@ns.sympatico.ca>
writes:
Hi Jerry,
Nice website. But, I'm afraid I didn't find anything that has anything
to do with the questions I asked you. Perhaps I overlooked it, but i
don't think so. Perhaps you could post a bit about it here so all can
see your stand on Posner and the way he used the testimony of
witnesses....let's keep it simple, just Marina, Frazier and Randle.
Thanks,
Barb :-)
Jerry Organ
Ben Holmes wrote:
>>> Can you name the 'doctors...who confirm the lone-assassin evidence'...
>>> I have a sneaking suspicion that not one name will be from Bethesda
>>> or Parkland....
>> Read what the majority have to say in "JAMA" and "Case Closed."
> Read the rebuttal to 'JAMA' in 'Assassination Science', and 'Case Closed'
> is not reliable enough to be used....
Are you saying "JAMA" and Posner put words in the doctors' mouths? Funny, that's what some
of the doctors said about the critics.
> And your phrasing appears to be somewhat misleading... 'Read what
> the *majority*...', majority of who? Certainly not a majority of the medical
> witnesses, and I'm sure you're well aware of that...
Majority of doctors at Bethesda and Parkland -- that's who you referred to in your original post
(at top).
Jerry Organ
Jerry Organ
Barb Junkkarinen wrote:
> Nice website. But, I'm afraid I didn't find anything that has anything
> to do with the questions I asked you. Perhaps I overlooked it, but i
> don't think so. Perhaps you could post a bit about it here so all can
> see your stand on Posner and the way he used the testimony of
> witnesses....let's keep it simple, just Marina, Frazier and Randle.
Tell it to Posner. If you want to discuss what's in my book, you'll have to buy it.
Jerry Organ
Barb Junkkarinen
In <34EA99...@ns.sympatico.ca> Jerry Organ <joj...@ns.sympatico.ca>
writes:
Oh really. Well, gee, Jerry, I hope your writing skills are better than
your marketing skills.<g> Stands to reason, I guess, that a book called
"Groden's Grains" would be about Posner. My error. But at any rate,
....hint....one way for an author to stir interest in his work is to
talk it up, discuss some of his thoughts and make potential readers
interested enough in what he has to say to want to buy the book. Aside
from that, if you're not here to discuss the issues...then I guess
there's no reason to read your posts, eh? Are you willing to discuss
the medical evidence, or is that a pay to play issue as well? :-)
Barb :-)
Jerry Organ
Barb Junkkarinen wrote:
> Oh really. Well, gee, Jerry, I hope your writing skills are better than
> your marketing skills.<g> Stands to reason, I guess, that a book called
> "Groden's Grains" would be about Posner. My error. But at any rate,
> ....hint....one way for an author to stir interest in his work is to
> talk it up, discuss some of his thoughts and make potential readers
> interested enough in what he has to say to want to buy the book. Aside
> from that, if you're not here to discuss the issues...then I guess
> there's no reason to read your posts, eh?
-----------------------------
Get lost, Barb. I'm not waiting time on being abused with your offensive bigotry over Posner.
I've put up a ton of material at my site and discussed plenty here over the last three months.
No matter what I do, it always ends up that I'm accused of promoting my book.
> Are you willing to discuss the medical evidence, or is that
> a pay to play issue as well?
There's a full -- and free -- webpage at my site called "Medical Myths." Guess that either
proves you haven't visited my site or your mind is totally closed to arguments based on fact.
Jerry Organ :-)
Fred Glazier
Jerry,
I would very much like to see your answers to Barb. For that matter I
would be very interested in watching the two of you having a discussion
about the assassination.
Frederick
The Conspiracy Museum, Inc.
Jerry Organ <joj...@ns.sympatico.ca> writes: > Ben Holmes wrote:
>
> > Can you name the 'doctors...who confirm the lone-assassin evidence'...
> > I have a sneaking suspicion that not one name will be from Bethesda
> > or Parkland....
>
> Read what the majority have to say in "JAMA" and "Case Closed."
>
> Jerry Organ
>
> [Groden's Grains] [Smoking Gun] [Kennedy's Lincoln]
> http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/jojoan/grains.html
Dear Ben,
Using the JAMA articles as well as "CASE CLOSED" is basically a lesson in
futility. JAMA did NOT do the necessary research to confirm a lot of its'
findings. Example: JAMA went to great lengths to discredit as well as
eradicate the testimony and presence of Dr. Charles Crenshaw, when all
JAMA authors had to do was to reference The Warren Report to determine
that the good Dr. WAS there. An excellent point of reference regarding
this is the book "Assassination Science". As far as the authenticity of
using "CASE CLOSED" as ANY source of reference, well....lets just say
that Mr. Posner should have taken a bit more caution and time in HIS
research. Suggested reading:Walt Brown's "TREACHERY IN DALLAS",
Harold Weisberg's "SELECTIONS FROM WHITEWASH", David S. Lifton's "BEST
EVIDENCE" ... all available via mail order from THE CONSPIRACY MUSEUM.
Best of Luck to All!
JOHN M. NAGEL
Barb Junkkarinen
In <34EB3FE1...@Network-1.com> Fred Glazier
<Gla...@Network-1.com> writes:
>
>Jerry,
>I would very much like to see your answers to Barb. For that matter I
>would be very interested in watching the two of you having a
discussion
>about the assassination.
>Frederick
Thank you, Frederick. Seems Mr. Organ doesn't want to play with me...I
can't imagine why. :-)
Barb :-)
Barb Junkkarinen
In <34EAF2...@ns.sympatico.ca> Jerry Organ <joj...@ns.sympatico.ca>
writes:
Artistic temperament? Jock itch? Any particular reason you take the
springer spaniel approach and point silently to a web page where there
can be no questions, comments, or give and take on the issues rather
than engage in discussion of the evidence here on this....uh,
*discussion* group?
I attempt polite and on target discussion and you say I have a closed
mind, accuse me of "offensive bigotry" and tell me to get lost. Well,
at least you have a sense of humor.<g> It seems you are perhaps afraid
to actually discuss the issues. Your choice, of course...for all to
see.
BWAK!
Barb :-)
Fred Glazier
Gee Barb so uh is that like uh a proposition? Heehee.
Frederick
Jerry Organ
Barb Junkkarinen wrote:
> I attempt polite and on target discussion
This is polite?? --
"Oh really. Well, gee, Jerry, I hope your writing skills are better than your marketing skills." "Are
you willing to discuss the medical evidence, or is that a pay to play issue as well?" "It seems
you are perhaps afraid to actually discuss the issues."
I think you're afraid to present your concerns about Posner to Posner. If there's anything at my
website or in my book you want to discuss, I'm here.
Jerry Organ
Barb Junkkarinen
In <34ECA3...@ns.sympatico.ca> Jerry Organ <joj...@ns.sympatico.ca>
writes:
You might take a wee peek at your own kettle before you call my pot
black, Jerry. :-) I have asked you reasonable questions based on items
you have posted and have gotten back nothing but snotgrass.
And you left the "<g>" off the end of my sentence about your marketing
skills. :-)
Posner isn't presenting himself here to discuss the case....you are.
You made a couple comments about Posner, so I asked *you* how you felt
about his handling of some of the other evidence. I have asked you
questions about other things...the medical evidence in
particular....and you do your rude punt thing. I wouldn't say that it
is I who is afraid to present anything to anyone. Your choice, of
course, no one has to discuss anything they don't want to....and
sometimes that speaks louder than all the words you could launch into
cyberspace on a topic anyway.
Have a nice weekend,
Barb :-)
Barb Junkkarinen
In <34EC9071...@Network-1.com> Fred Glazier
<Gla...@Network-1.com> writes:
>
>Gee Barb so uh is that like uh a proposition? Heehee.
>Frederick
Only for discussion of the evidence, Frederick...only for discussion.
:-)
Barb :-)
Gary Aguilar
In <34eb2...@204.167.245.31> The Conspiracy Museum, Inc.
<tc...@altinet.net> writes:
>
>Jerry Organ:
>> Read what the majority have to say in "JAMA" and "Case Closed."
>>
>> --------------
>> Jerry Organ
>>
>> [Groden's Grains] [Smoking Gun] [Kennedy's Lincoln]
>> http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/jojoan/grains.html
>
>Dear Ben,
>
>Using the JAMA articles as well as "CASE CLOSED" is basically a lesson
in
>futility. JAMA did NOT do the necessary research to confirm a lot of
its'
>findings. Example: JAMA went to great lengths to discredit as well as
>eradicate the testimony and presence of Dr. Charles Crenshaw, when all
>JAMA authors had to do was to reference The Warren Report to determine
>that the good Dr. WAS there. An excellent point of reference
regarding
>this is the book "Assassination Science". As far as the authenticity
of
>using "CASE CLOSED" as ANY source of reference, well....lets just say
>that Mr. Posner should have taken a bit more caution and time in HIS
>research. Suggested reading:Walt Brown's "TREACHERY IN DALLAS",
>Harold Weisberg's "SELECTIONS FROM WHITEWASH", David S. Lifton's "BEST
>EVIDENCE" ... all available via mail order from THE CONSPIRACY MUSEUM.
>Best of Luck to All!
>JOHN M. NAGEL
John,
JAMA did a lot worse than you suggest! It was those silly articles, for
which JAMA paid Charles Crenshaw an out of court settlement of over
$200,000.oo, that got me really going on what had been only a mild
interest before.
As a physician, I was naturally drawn to the medical/autopsy evidence.
I read with fascination the Journal of the American Medical
Association's (JAMA's) May 27, 1992 interviews with the pathologists
who performed JFK's autopsy.
In JAMA they hotly disputed Oliver Stone's depiction of them as being
under intense pressure while performing a "controlled" autopsy.
Inexplicably, however, they refused to appear with JAMA's editor,
George D. Lundberg, MD, at a news conference called to announce the
publication of their revelations. (Like when they were invited to
testify before the Assassinations Record Review Board. They initially
refused, so the ARRB slapped the boys with supoenas and commanded them
to appear. Reluctantly, they then did. Real courage! Nothing to hide,
my arse.)
Though an American Medical Association member myself then, I wasn't
reassurred that Lundberg, to whom JFK's pathologists had granted the
"exclusive" interviews, was himself a former military pathologist, and
their personal friend.
I wrote a letter to JAMA's editor asking the pathologists several
questions. Luckily my letter was selected and published by JAMA editors
(10/7/92), alongside many other letters. But when JFK's pathologists
refused to answer every single medical colleague's question in a
"peer-reviewed" medical journal, including mine, I thought the
medical/autopsy evidence might be worth a closer look.
If nothing was amiss, why were JFK's pathologists giving exclusive
interviews only to a fellow military pathologist who was also their
personal friend? And why were they dodging the press and their own
professional colleagues so long after the assassination?
Hilariously, for JAMA's pretentions, those silly articles got whacked
good by the Columbia Journalism Review in both the Sept/Oct, '93 issue
(Wayne Smith), and again in a stinging letter by me in the Nov/Dec, '93
issue. Since then no serious scholar really even looks at them. (Can't,
of course, therefore consider Posner or Organ "serious" then, can you?)
Imagine: fellow military pathologists huddle together, they call the
closed huddle "open JAMA presentations" and, except for a few letters
to the editor, on which they pull a Nixon-stonewall maneuver, they
allow the journal to chant only a Warren-friendly tune.
Silly beyond belief.
But there's an amusing anecdote. George Lundberg said that Dennis
Breo's JFK articles in JAMA had been 'peer-reviewed', that is,
knowledgeable authorities had fact-checked them. (It cost 'em $200
thousand + that they "missed" the fact Crenshaw, who they reported was
not there, was in fact there with JFK. McClelland later reported that
he told Breo McClelland was there, but not only did Breo not mention it
in his silly hit piece, he didn't bother to inverview Crenshaw, a
minimal, yet requisite, journalistic courtesy in repected circles.
In the Crenshaw suit, Lundberg was forced to name the "authorities"
he'd claimed were the "peer-reviewers". They were: himself, Richard
Glass, MD, a Lundberg underling at AMA/JAMA who testified he knew next
to nothing about the JFK case in Crenshaw depositions, and, thirdly, an
AMA attorney, B.J. Andersen, who, likewise, admitted to all but
complete ignorance of the JFK topic.
Amazing abuse of science, and ironically performed by one of the most
bombastic high priests of the sanctity of 'peer-review scientific
journalism', George Lundberg, MD, JAMA's editor!
Is it any wonder that the AMA "leadership" decided, for a big payday,
to lend its reputation shilling for Sunbeam products that would, after
the check was cashed, have the "AMA" seal of approval?
And loyalists wonder why Warren critics mistrust "authorities"!
gary
PS I'm no longer an AMA member.
Lisa Pease
Greg Jaynes (jay...@flash.net) wrote:
: Vern Pascal wrote in message
: <6c8uj3$f1c$1...@newsd-163.iap.bryant.webtv.net>...
: You believe the SBT & the hail mary jet effect and your trying to
: tell us your not a lone nutter?
: Don't you have to believe that Oswald acted ALONE
: to qualify as a lone nutter?
You only have to believe Oswald was the key shooter to be labeled a
spook, Greg. The evidence doesn't support that, but the CIA sure does. :)
--
Lisa Pease
"It is as if the final price for winning the Cold War is our confinement
to a permanent childhood where reassuring fantasies and endless
diversions protect us from the hard truth of our own recent history."
--Robert Parry, THE CONSORTIUM, 2/17/97
Check out my Real History Archives @ http://www.webcom.com/lpease
Visit the site of Probe Magazine at http://www.webcom.com/ctka
Martin Shackelford
Aren't we lucky to have Lisa Pease available to tell us how to think
properly. Almost as lucky as we are to have Jim Fetzer around to define
"Proof" for us.
Martin
Jerry Organ
Barb Junkkarinen wrote:
> Posner isn't presenting himself here to discuss the case....you are.
Have you wrote to Posner or left an e-mail at his website?
> You made a couple comments about Posner, so I asked *you* how
> you felt about his handling of some of the other evidence.
Right. I gave two samples (Rowland and bullet separating) that you didn't want to explore.
> I wouldn't say that it is I who is afraid to present anything to anyone.
Go to website -- get my book. Let's discuss that. Any grievances for Posner, sent to him.
I can't speak for Posner and I don't want to entertain your obvious bigotry towards him.
Recently I tried to discuss some issues with other critics, only to be labelled an "imbecile" and
"Nazi." Are you any more civil?
Jerry Organ
The Conspiracy Museum, Inc.
gar...@ix.netcom.com(Gary Aguilar) writes: > In <34eb2...@204.167.245.31> The Conspiracy Museum, Inc.
Thank you for bringing a more in-depth study/synopsis as to the goings-on
of JAMA. I guess I could have gone into more detail regarding this, but
I try to leave my comments/suggestions/retorts, short and factual. I
appreciate you being able to add a little bit more expertise to this post.
Above all, this should educate the readers of this post that Mr. Organs
response (though well intentioned) regarding the JAMA articles as well
as CASE CLOSED as the definitive answer to the original statement made,
has another side to it. Many thanks again Gary!
JOHN M. NAGEL
Barb Junkkarinen
In <34F05A...@ns.sympatico.ca> Jerry Organ <joj...@ns.sympatico.ca>
writes:
>Barb Junkkarinen wrote:
>
>> Posner isn't presenting himself here to discuss the case....you are.
>
>Have you wrote to Posner or left an e-mail at his website?
Whatever correspondence I have, or have not, had with Posner has
nothing to do with your thoughts on Posner. You don't live in his
pocket, do you?<g>
>
>> You made a couple comments about Posner, so I asked *you* how
>> you felt about his handling of some of the other evidence.
>
>Right. I gave two samples (Rowland and bullet separating) that you
didn't want to explore.
Who said I didn't want to explore them? You said you took exception to
some things in his book, I asked what, you named two things (but didn't
ask me any questions)....I asked about a couple of other things that I
think go to the heart of the problem with Posner's work and wondered
how you felt about them. And you've commenced dancing.Why? It would
seem you are the one who doesn't care to "explore".
>
>> I wouldn't say that it is I who is afraid to present anything to
anyone.
>
>Go to website -- get my book. Let's discuss that. Any grievances for
Posner, sent to him.
If you don't want to discuss something, then I suggest you don't bring
it up. :-)
>
>I can't speak for Posner and I don't want to entertain your obvious
bigotry towards him.
Did I ask you to speak for Posner? No. I asked you to speak for
yourself.
>Recently I tried to discuss some issues with other critics, only to be
labelled an "imbecile" and
>"Nazi." Are you any more civil?
Don't make the mistake of lumping all critics together into the same
lumpy gravy pot....we're not many bodies attached to one befuddled
brain. I have a reputation for being very civil...too civil according
to some. If you're here to discuss the evidence, then
discuss.....you'll wear out less shoes. Are you willing to discuss the
medical issues? That is my particular area of interest. Tell ya what,
I'll even be cicil and let you suggest a medical topic for discussion.
Why don't you pick one from that website of yours and we'll explore it.
:-)
Barb :-)
Jerry Organ
Barb Junkkarinen wrote:
> Are you willing to discuss the medical issues? That is my particular
> area of interest.
"Groden's Grains" is primarily about photographic issues.
Medically, the Zapruder and Nix film show an explosion of the head in the exact same location
as the gaping wound seen in the autopsy photos and X-rays. Your turn.
Jerry Organ
Barb Junkkarinen
In <34F18D...@ns.sympatico.ca> Jerry Organ <joj...@ns.sympatico.ca>
writes:
The wound cannot be seen in the Nix film....it was taken from the
opposite side of the street; a bit of spray can be seen. The Z film
shows us the dramatic opening on the side of the head....so what? Are
you saying this was the only "gaping" damage done to the head? The
autopsy photos themselves tell us that isn't true. Jackie closed that
flap on the way to the hospital...agreed? What gaping wound do you
believe they saw at Parkland if not a hole in the right rear quadrant
as described and independently noted by the physicians in attendance
there?
Your turn.
Barb :-)
Jerry Organ
Barb Junkkarinen wrote:
>> Organ:
>> Medically, the Zapruder and Nix film show an explosion of the
>> head in the exact same location as the gaping wound seen in the
>> autopsy photos and X-rays. Your turn.
> Junkkarinen:
> The wound cannot be seen in the Nix film....it was taken from
> the opposite side of the street; a bit of spray can be seen.
You're right. The Zapruder film shows the gaping wound best. The Nix film confirms the Z-film
wasn't faked as to the area of the head explosion and the immediate forward movement,
followed by a less-violent rearward movement. Along with the Moorman photo and Muchmore
film, the Zapruder and Nix films also disprove critical notions that a bullet exited out the rear of
the President's head.
> Junkkarinen:
> The Z film shows us the dramatic opening on the side of the head....
> so what? Are you saying this was the only "gaping" damage done to
> the head? The autopsy photos themselves tell us that isn't true.
The autopsy photos show just one gaping wound in the exact same location as the Zapruder
film, the only other impartial record.
> Jackie closed that flap on the way to the hospital...agreed? What
> gaping wound do you believe they saw at Parkland if not a hole
> in the right rear quadrant as described and independently noted
> by the physicians in attendance there?
It all depends on what your definition of "occipital" is; to critics, it means "rearward" back
towards (and sometimes including) the actual occipital bone. I have been arguing with Aguilar
that "occipital" can also mean a general region as defined by a line drawn over the apex from
ear-to-ear.
If you accept my definition, the "occipito-parietal" location given by Dr. Clark is compatible to
the gaping wound as seen in the Zapruder film and the autopsy photos.
Barb, are you saying anecdotal evidence is always more reliable than a formal autopsy, with
photos and X-rays?
Barb Junkkarinen
In <34F5EE...@ns.sympatico.ca> Jerry Organ <joj...@ns.sympatico.ca>
writes:
>Barb Junkkarinen wrote:
>
>>> Organ:
>>> Medically, the Zapruder and Nix film show an explosion of the
>>> head in the exact same location as the gaping wound seen in the
>>> autopsy photos and X-rays. Your turn.
>
>> Junkkarinen:
>> The wound cannot be seen in the Nix film....it was taken from
>> the opposite side of the street; a bit of spray can be seen.
>
>You're right. The Zapruder film shows the gaping wound best. The Nix
film confirms the Z-film
>wasn't faked as to the area of the head explosion and the immediate
forward movement,
>followed by a less-violent rearward movement. Along with the Moorman
photo and Muchmore
>film, the Zapruder and Nix films also disprove critical notions that a
bullet exited out the rear of
>the President's head.
The films do not show a gaping posterior exit wound...that does not
mean there was not one there. These films are not the best evidence for
the overall extent of any of the wounds.
>
>> Junkkarinen:
>> The Z film shows us the dramatic opening on the side of the head....
>> so what? Are you saying this was the only "gaping" damage done to
>> the head? The autopsy photos themselves tell us that isn't true.
>
>The autopsy photos show just one gaping wound in the exact same
location as the Zapruder
>film, the only other impartial record.
Uh, take another peek at the autopsy photos.<g> And another peek at the
autopsy report and diagrams...and the anatomic descriptions and the
measurements.
>
>> Jackie closed that flap on the way to the hospital...agreed? What
>> gaping wound do you believe they saw at Parkland if not a hole
>> in the right rear quadrant as described and independently noted
>> by the physicians in attendance there?
>
>It all depends on what your definition of "occipital" is; to critics,
it means "rearward" back
>towards (and sometimes including) the actual occipital bone. I have
been arguing with Aguilar
>that "occipital" can also mean a general region as defined by a line
drawn over the apex from
>ear-to-ear.
Jabberwockey. I didn't use the word "occipital". :-) Parkland personnel
described a gaping wound in the right posterior of the head. Clint
Hill...NObody in Texas had a better look at the state of JFK's head in
the immediate aftermath of the shooting.....noted that the right
posterior of the President's head was *missing*. He saw bone laying on
the back seat. Something in the Texas water...everybody hallucinating
the same thing?
>
>If you accept my definition, the "occipito-parietal" location given by
Dr. Clark is compatible to
>the gaping wound as seen in the Zapruder film and the autopsy photos.
Not even close. The gaping wound...the bone flap...seen in the Z-film
would not be described as occipito-parietal. Tempero-parietal...yes.
>
>Barb, are you saying anecdotal evidence is always more reliable than a
formal autopsy, with
>photos and X-rays?
Please define your use of "anecdotal evidence".
Barb :-)
Jerry Organ
>> Organ:
>> You're right. The Zapruder film shows the gaping wound best.
>> The Nix film confirms the Z-film wasn't faked as to the area of
>> the head explosion and the immediate forward movement,
>> followed by a less-violent rearward movement. Along with the
>> Moorman photo and Muchmore film, the Zapruder and Nix films
>> also disprove critical notions that a bullet exited out the rear of
>> the President's head.
> Junkkarinen:
> The films do not show a gaping posterior exit wound...that does
> not mean there was not one there. These films are not the best
> evidence for the overall extent of any of the wounds.
The Zapruder film show an explosion of the head in the exact same location as the gaping
wound seen in the autopsy photos and X-rays. The Moorman photo, and Muchmore and Nix
film show no explosive wound though the back of the head. The films and autopsy photos are
the only impartial records of the assassination.
>> Organ:
>> The autopsy photos show just one gaping wound in the exact same
>> location as the Zapruder film, the only other impartial record.
> Junkkarinen:
> Uh, take another peek at the autopsy photos. And another peek at the
> autopsy report and diagrams...and the anatomic descriptions and the
> measurements.
For now, let's concentrate on the autopsy photos and the Zapruder film. Are you implying the
gaping wound in the autopsy photo is in a different location than that seen in the Zapruder
film?
> Junkkarinen:
> Jabberwockey. I didn't use the word "occipital". :-)
Fine. But a lot of critics have make an issue of the term "occipital." I'm all for dispensing with
the implication from critics that "occipital" always means the very rear of the head.
> Junkkarinen:
> Parkland personnel described a gaping wound in the right posterior
> of the head.
How, Barb? The Parkland doctors using the term "occipital"? It's not at the very rear of the
head if you accept my rough definition as: the region behind a line drawn through the apex
from ear-to-ear.
> Junkkarinen:
> Clint Hill...NObody in Texas had a better look at the state of JFK's
> head in the immediate aftermath of the shooting.....noted that the
> right posterior of the President's head was *missing*. He saw bone
> laying on the back seat. Something in the Texas water...everybody
> hallucinating the same thing?
Barb, are you saying anecdotal evidence like Clint Hill's is always more reliable than a formal
autopsy, with photos and X-rays?
>> Organ:
>> If you accept my definition, the "occipito-parietal" location given by
>> Dr. Clark is compatible to the gaping wound as seen in the Zapruder
>> film and the autopsy photos.
> Junkkarinen:
> Not even close. The gaping wound...the bone flap...seen in the Z-film
> would not be described as occipito-parietal.
Like I've said:
It all depends on what your definition of "occipital" is; to critics,
it means "rearward" back towards (and sometimes including) the
actual occipital bone. I have been arguing with Aguilar that
"occipital" can also mean a general region as defined by a line
drawn over the apex from ear-to-ear.
Now, what's your definition of the "occipital" region?
> Junkkarinen:
> Tempero-parietal...yes.
Why didn't Dr. Clark use the term "tempero"? What's your definition of "tempero"?
Jerry Organ